My previous experience with Batman and Superman was pretty simplistic. Superman was the one with the big S on his chest. Overall, he was a good guy, and I owned a Super-Girl hat at one time in my life. Batman was different. He was the rich one, the one with the underground layer. He had the cool car, and I didn’t think he had any real talent as a superhero, but he did have the money to make the powers that other superheroes have. After reading DKR, yes, things have changed as far as my perspectives go, and now I’m starting to like Batman more, in comparison to Superman, in large part because of how they look when the two are pushed together.
In DKR, when we see the first sign of the Superman S, I already wanted to paint Superman and Batman as opposites. The flood of media images on Batman, through the panels and panels of news feed, talk shows, and television commentaries, have Batman as the unruly vigilante who couldn’t be bothered to play by the rules because he had things that needed to be done. Obviously, he saw that the laws weren’t working; so why heed them? Superman, however, being called a “Good boy” by the government is shown, right off the bat, to be the errand boy who does play by the rules, and might just like it that way, arguably (Miller 84).
For a while, when I was reading, I wanted to say that Batman and Superman were like the two sides of the Two Face coin, but I’m at the moment not convinced that that’s good enough. It’s too simple, but at the time, I had believed that the theory could work. If they would be two sides of the coin, one constant would be that whatever side the coin landed on, good would prevail. The side chosen would only dictate the means by which the “overall good” would win over evil. Or, in even more simplistic terms, regardless of whether or not it is heads or tails, you would still have a quarter in your hand to buy something with at the end of the day.
Coming full circle, I want to attempt to give my overly simplistic evaluations of Batman and Superman an overhaul, in light of the DKR take on the Batman story. Batman is not the rich guy with a hobby of fighting villains; now, he is the gangster for the good of the people. Boichel describes it as Batman being the “figure who, like the criminals, operated outside the law and on his own terms, yet did so on behalf of the status quo…” (7). Conversely, Superman is now the morally obligated hired help of the powers that be, also known as the government.
If the coin analogy simplifies things too much, does anyone have something better to describe the Batman/ Superman dynamic? Would “more and less complicated shades of good” be any better?
~Kelley
I had mentioned this in a tweet, but it seems relevant here (and I’ll also have more room to write). I also notice the dichotomy between Batman and Superman, and among other things, find them to represent two different aspects of justice. Superman is the representation of government justice: playing by the rules, respecting authority. This often comes at a price of not getting things done, or getting them done, but with a high cost–such as the launch detonation of nuclear weapons.
Batman on the other hand represents the entrepreneur. He creates himself and heads out to fight crime since, clearly, nobody else in Gotham is very good at it. He obeys his own code, which doesn’t involve killing, but also doesn’t involve listening to authority figures. This creates a very ambiguous moral code. We all know Superman is a good guy doing his best to help. Same for Batman. So who’s right? Is Gotham allowed to sink into decay because government entities worry themselves over cold-wars? Is vigilante justice OK when a city is allowed to sink into decay–as we see when Batman comes out of retirement? Should superheroes become government figureheads, or does this corrupt them absolutely? This is one problem we see as we have two good guys filling polarizing roles that manifest themselves in their showdown.
In a side note: does this answer the question of who would win in a fight, Batman or Superman? Or is it unfair because Superman may have been a little radiated from a nuclear blast, reducing his strength? The main argument I’ve always heard for why Batman could win is because he’s basically smart enough to figure out a way to weaken Superman before/during the fight. Seems like Miller gives the edge to Batman here.
I had mentioned this in a tweet, but it seems relevant here (and I’ll also have more room to write). I also notice the dichotomy between Batman and Superman, and among other things, find them to represent two different aspects of justice. Superman is the representation of government justice: playing by the rules, respecting authority. This often comes at a price of not getting things done, or getting them done, but with a high cost–such as the launch detonation of nuclear weapons.
Batman on the other hand represents the entrepreneur. He creates himself and heads out to fight crime since, clearly, nobody else in Gotham is very good at it. He obeys his own code, which doesn’t involve killing, but also doesn’t involve listening to authority figures. This creates a very ambiguous moral code. We all know Superman is a good guy doing his best to help. Same for Batman. So who’s right? Is Gotham allowed to sink into decay because government entities worry themselves over cold-wars? Is vigilante justice OK when a city is allowed to sink into decay–as we see when Batman comes out of retirement? Should superheroes become government figureheads, or does this corrupt them absolutely? This is one problem we see as we have two good guys filling polarizing roles that manifest themselves in their showdown.
In a side note: does this answer the question of who would win in a fight, Batman or Superman? Or is it unfair because Superman may have been a little radiated from a nuclear blast, reducing his strength? The main argument I’ve always heard for why Batman could win is because he’s basically smart enough to figure out a way to weaken Superman before/during the fight. Seems like Miller gives the edge to Batman here.
I’m glad you guys brought up Superman here. I think Miller uses him really well in DKR, and it lifts the whole work as a result. As you both argued, the “big blue schoolboy” is painted as a goodie-two-shoes who always plays by the rules, while Batman is the conflicted vigilante bad-boy. Kelley, I think one reason you may have felt unsatisfied with the black-and-white coin analogy is that there’s a lot more going on here than good vs. evil. As a foil, Superman not only emphasizes Batman’s disregard for authority, but also highlights the Dark Knight’s humanity and complexity of character. In Superman, Miller creates a caricature of the superhero stereotype: perennially young, flamboyantly handsome, and zealously patriotic. In short, too simple, too perfect to be human.
Miller builds up this characterization throughout the piece: the president says of Superman, “We’ve got God on our side…or the next best thing, anyway…heh…” (115). In the huge frame on p.114 with all the butterflies and flowers, Clark dominates the frame in a Paul Bunyan pose as his hair billows in the wind. Bruce thinks “There’s just the sun and the sky and him, like he’s the only reason it’s all here.” Superman’s own supercilious attitude validates this perspective: he refers to the attitudes of normal people towards superheroes as “the envy of those not blessed” and later says “We must not remind them that giants walk the earth” (116, 130). In the final battle, before a huge frame of Batman smashing Superman’s face with a right hook, the Dark Knight thinks to Clark, “It’s way past time you learned what it means…to be a man” (190-191). By contrast, as you guys have touched on, Batman struggles with suicidal thoughts, alcoholism, aging etc.
So in this way, Miller uses his cardboard version of Superman to present his Batman as the epitome of what a costumed superhero can be: a flawed, complex, human character with all the depth it takes to sustain a narrative with emotional impact and social relevance. The climactic battle is operatic, sure, but by pitting these opposite visions of the superhero in conflict on the same page, Miller lends all the themes DKR struggles with to the comic book action. We’ve got social complacency vs. challenging authority. We’ve got the system vs. the individual. We’ve got the new world vs. the aging hero of yesterday. We’ve got all the metafictional elements challenging the precepts of what a comic book can and should be: the flat, cliché vessel for propaganda aimed at young males vs. Miller’s vision of the superhero’s potential. The cowardice and censorship of the industry vs. the will and creativity of the artist. Despite—or because of—the melodramatic conclusion (Miller, an self-confessed Romantic, is not ashamed that his work is still a comic book at heart), this particular flavor of Superman really tied the book together for me and elevated it above a mere sequence of high-quality Batman vs. gangs/Two-Face/Joker stories.
I’m glad you guys brought up Superman here. I think Miller uses him really well in DKR, and it lifts the whole work as a result. As you both argued, the “big blue schoolboy” is painted as a goodie-two-shoes who always plays by the rules, while Batman is the conflicted vigilante bad-boy. Kelley, I think one reason you may have felt unsatisfied with the black-and-white coin analogy is that there’s a lot more going on here than good vs. evil. As a foil, Superman not only emphasizes Batman’s disregard for authority, but also highlights the Dark Knight’s humanity and complexity of character. In Superman, Miller creates a caricature of the superhero stereotype: perennially young, flamboyantly handsome, and zealously patriotic. In short, too simple, too perfect to be human.
Miller builds up this characterization throughout the piece: the president says of Superman, “We’ve got God on our side…or the next best thing, anyway…heh…” (115). In the huge frame on p.114 with all the butterflies and flowers, Clark dominates the frame in a Paul Bunyan pose as his hair billows in the wind. Bruce thinks “There’s just the sun and the sky and him, like he’s the only reason it’s all here.” Superman’s own supercilious attitude validates this perspective: he refers to the attitudes of normal people towards superheroes as “the envy of those not blessed” and later says “We must not remind them that giants walk the earth” (116, 130). In the final battle, before a huge frame of Batman smashing Superman’s face with a right hook, the Dark Knight thinks to Clark, “It’s way past time you learned what it means…to be a man” (190-191). By contrast, as you guys have touched on, Batman struggles with suicidal thoughts, alcoholism, aging etc.
So in this way, Miller uses his cardboard version of Superman to present his Batman as the epitome of what a costumed superhero can be: a flawed, complex, human character with all the depth it takes to sustain a narrative with emotional impact and social relevance. The climactic battle is operatic, sure, but by pitting these opposite visions of the superhero in conflict on the same page, Miller lends all the themes DKR struggles with to the comic book action. We’ve got social complacency vs. challenging authority. We’ve got the system vs. the individual. We’ve got the new world vs. the aging hero of yesterday. We’ve got all the metafictional elements challenging the precepts of what a comic book can and should be: the flat, cliché vessel for propaganda aimed at young males vs. Miller’s vision of the superhero’s potential. The cowardice and censorship of the industry vs. the will and creativity of the artist. Despite—or because of—the melodramatic conclusion (Miller, an self-confessed Romantic, is not ashamed that his work is still a comic book at heart), this particular flavor of Superman really tied the book together for me and elevated it above a mere sequence of high-quality Batman vs. gangs/Two-Face/Joker stories.
As a flyby comment: Poor Superman! Will he ever be cool again? I can’t think of anyway in today’s day and age.
And yes, I agree with Jay–perhaps the deepest conversation of TDKR is the one revolving around Batman vs. Superman!
As a flyby comment: Poor Superman! Will he ever be cool again? I can’t think of anyway in today’s day and age.
And yes, I agree with Jay–perhaps the deepest conversation of TDKR is the one revolving around Batman vs. Superman!